2022-05-19 Leeward Exh B (Item 2 Council Bill No 120 PL-CC-2022-000001)

Home

Planning Department. The reference to "an additional two years" is confusing; the intent of the provision should be clarified. In response, under Section I.A. and I.B. of Councilmember Kimball's proposed amendments, pardon me, the note is that they still reference plan review even in her amendments, so the Director maintains his request to change this to Plan Approval. Under Section I.B. of the proposed amendments clarifies the reference to "an additional two years"by including a similar installation schedule to account for the additional two-year timeline. The Director agrees with this proposed amendment and recommends adopting this change. Recommendation number 7, Section 25-4-54.1(c) shall identify a trigger for existing places of public accommodation that are not subject to Plan Approval requirements, for example, within a certain amount of time from the code change or based on public complaints, etcetera. The reason for this is the requirement for existing places of public accommodation that are not subject to Plan Approval to comply with section 291-71 has no timed compliance trigger other than, or other enforcement mechanism, so it's unclear how the existing places of public accommodation meeting that size criteria will come into compliance. Recommendation number 8 is, clarify the apparent conflict between the number of parking stalls required for each EV charger versus each plug on an EV charger . Under section 25-4-54.1(a), it appears the number of dedicated parking stalls corresponds to the number of plugs available, and the Councilmember confirmed that; however, under the section 25-4-54.1(e), the bill requires a dedicated EV parking stall for all EV chargers, which can include several plugs. The Director recommends that 25-4-54.1(e) be amended to match the Councilmember's proposed changes to Section 25-4-54.1(a) that require the number of dedicated EV parking stalls to match the number of required plugs. The ninth recommendation here from the Director is under Section 25-4-54.1(f). It does not allow EV designated spaces to displace or reduce ADA accessible stalls but that does not address requirements for ADA accessible EV stalls. Consider adding a section referencing ADA requirements for EV stalls. The reason for this is in 2012 the State Disability and Communication Access Board, DCAB, issued an interpretive opinion related to the requirement of EV charging stations to be accessible for all public buildings, facilities and sites constructed by or on behalf of the State or any county. According to this opinion, "Where EV charging stations are provided, five percent, but not less than one, of each type of EV station shall be accessible." In addition, the opinion articulates design requirements for the ADA-accessible EV parking stalls. So in response Section I.C. of the Councilmember's proposed amendments address this by adding the requirement that at least one of the designated EV parking spaces shall be ADA accessible EV stall. The Director agrees with this proposed amendment and recommends adopting this change. Recommendation number 10, under Section 25-4-54.1(h), define what is considered to be a "reasonable" fee. The reason for this is the qualifier "reasonable" is subjective and difficult to enforce. We consider adding a fee cap or a fee schedule based on a number of kilowatt-hours charged. Under Section ILD. of the proposed amendments from the Councilmember, it was addressed by deleting the word"reasonable." The Director agrees with this proposed amendment and recommends adopting this change. 6 EXHIBIT B